Case Study: Risk and emergency preparedness analyses ensures safe and efficient operations for Statoil

Client: Statoil
Asset type: oil field
Location: Norwegian continental shelf

Client background

Statoil is an integrated oil and gas company based in Norway, with operations in 37 countries around the world. It is the leading operator on the Norwegian continental shelf.

About the project

Johan Sverdrup:

  • one of the five biggest oil fields on the Norwegian continental shelf
  • production at plateau will be equivalent to 25% of all Norwegian petroleum production
  • anticipated operation to start in 2019
  • estimated peak production of over 550,000 barrels per day
  • estimated lifetime of 50 years

Statoil awarded Aker Solutions the engineering framework agreement with Lloyd's Register as the third party contractor for safety studies in Phase 1 - FEED (Front End Engineering Design) development.

Statoil - Johan Sverdrup - Case study - Platform - 634x216

Phase 1 development layout of the giant Johan Sverdrup Field Centre

How Lloyd's Register helped

In light of the Johan Sverdrup project ambitions, safe and efficient operations were the most important prerequisites. During the FEED phase, we performed a broad range of safety studies, including total risk analysis (TRA) and emergency preparedness analysis to form a basis for a seamless transition to the construction and as-built phase, verifying the design is built in accordance with Norwegian safety regulations.

TRA evaluates the safe design of the facilities, and it was executed timely with regard to the design schedule using our completive advantages in expertise, technology and innovations. We identified and quantified risk associated with major hazards relating to the field centre, and provided input to engineering in developing a safe design. In addition, the TRA formed a basis for controlling the risk from the activities at the facilities, and documented the risk level for the facility compared to the authority and Statoil's risk tolerance criteria. This enabled us to give input to design accidental loads, i.e. loads related to abnormal operations or technical failure such as collisions, fires and explosions. In addition, we provided input to the safety strategies including guidelines for practical implementation of design accidental loads in the ongoing design of the facilities.

Key areas of scope

  • TRA – consistent use across all platforms
  • Design accidental loads
  • Design safety strategies
  • Design safety guidelines
  • Probabilistic consequence modelling
  • Exhaust and flare dispersion risk
  • Helideck turbulence risk
  • Ventilation and wind chill effect risk
  • Waste and water dispersion risk

The risk and emergency preparedness analyses contributed to the selection of safety-wise optimum solutions, thus reducing risk measures on a sound technical and organisational basis. Through this analysis, we proposed design solutions that fed into emergency plans and ultimately safeguarded personnel and the working environment from adverse incidents. In order to avoid major and costly design changes at a later stage, we carried out this analysis as an integrated element of the TRA work.

Using our latest computational fluid dynamics (CFD) capability, we investigated the consequences of any potential fires and explosions at the Field Centre, and subsequently used this data as input to the TRA. We have a proven track record of demonstrating probabilistic consequence modelling by examining the 'chain' of potential events which occur during accidental scenarios.

In addition, we performed a wide range of detailed CFD analyses to evaluate the risk associated with exhaust and flare dispersion, helideck turbulence, ventilation and wind chill effect, as well as waste and water dispersion.

Results

  • Early reporting of risk findings captured in design phase led to development of safe design
  • Reduced risk due to effective technical and organisational analyses
  • Effective comparison of risk level for the facility to regional and Statoil risk tolerance criteria
  • Development of design solutions and emergency plans, safeguarding personnel and the working environment
  • Efficient and cost effective integration of LR team across all parties
  • Flexible approach to meeting requirements of multiple stakeholders
  • The project follow-up audit report carried out by the PSA cited that Statoil, Aker and LR showed good knowledge about the topic related to the worst credible process fire, and that important methodology has been transferred to the other relevant facilities